It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Orwellian Doublethink in War against Terror

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
This thread is to keep ATS members honest.

What happens here is that members post examples of other ATS members using Orwellian Doublethink on the forum.

Please no personal attacks other than to point out exactly where the Orwellian Doublethink occurs in the member's posts.

The goal of this thread is to raise awareness of the dangerous habit of illogical Doublethink and to help us to identify and eliminate it from our thinking.

Here's a wee pep talk on Doublethink from our friend and straight talker Alex Jones:

infowars.net...

Don't be shy, identify the doublethinkers!!



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
My favourite quote from Alex's page is 'willing to give up liberties for freedom'.

But seriously, I think we are so inculcated to doublethink that it will be hard to separate it from our normal speech as it is in fact now our normal speak. We get it from the media, from politicians and advertising especially. This is how we talk, this is how we think.

I remember reading 1984 and thinking there was no way that this could ever happen. People are way too smart to fall for that right?

Right?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Anyone who exercises their brain can avoid Doublespeak and Doublethink.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I've been seeing this phenomenon lots lately.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Roy,

Not saying impossible, saying very difficult. I am trying to put across the idea that it isn't just our rhetoric that is at fault here, it is part of the global endemic that we are doublespeaking and thinking because that is how we have been taught since - well since before 1984.

For example this double concept: Surveillence cameras are for YOUR protection...

It isn't simply watching one's language - it is the entire concept behind it which is more than a thought or even a double thought.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Sure, there are no doubt many layers of doublethink and assumptions which are doublethoughts but there is a fertile field of really glaring examples of doublethink happening daily on this forum. The idea is that when you find a real whopper of a Doublethink chestnut you beetle your mouse over to this thread and expose the Author.

In the nicest possible way of course



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
This thread is to keep ATS members honest.

What happens here is that members post examples of other ATS members using Orwellian Doublethink on the forum.

Please no personal attacks other than to point out exactly where the Orwellian Doublethink occurs in the member's posts.


Don't be shy, identify the doublethinkers!!



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]


I think that by identifying the people who are 'double thinkers' as you put it, will entice a lot of argumentative comments from those that are named. I think you are on a hiding to nothing with this one.............



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I like what you are trying to do here. Actually, I am pretty new to the forum, but I have been active so far, and I don't know that I've seen as many examples of pure "Doublethink" as I have good old fashioned critical thinking fallicies. For example, if anyone condemns the use of torture, or arbitrary detention in the war on terror, that person is sure to get responses to the effect that they are taking the terrorists side, or claiming that the terrorists are good in comparison to the U.S; this is an example of the straw man tactic.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Yup, the good old straw man tactic. . . . . attribute a meaning to someone's post which is wider than actually stated or is otherwise not what was said, then attack the position which has been invented on that person's behalf.

Perhaps this thread should include examples of all logical fallacies found on this foum.

And pehaps we can quote without mentioning names?





posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I would say "war against terrorism"
Why? Because everyone thinks that the aim of a terrorist is to cause terror, right?
So really we are talking about a “war against terror”...
Our own terror!!!
Yes that’s what terrorism is-wants, let’s destroy it!!! Lets destroy the fear of terrorism is what the slogan should mean.
That would be rational. I mean the U.K loses just under 600,000 people to natural causes every year so the loss of 50 something Londer’s to terrorism isn’t really the point. It’s the fear that counts, let’s destroy it!

So as an example in a real war against terrorism liberty restriction might involve restricting how much newspaper space, air-time the media devotes to the subject. The battleground would be the fear of our people for the terrorist, and the absence of fear of our people for our own people.
As long as terrorism means terror that’s what a war against terror would all be about.
Personally I have nothing against tackling the delivery of terrorism (e.g. Osama’s bomb), and nether do I have a problem tackling the causes of the “terror of terrorism” (e.g. the media).

But surely everybody would separate the means to “deliver terrorism” and the “terror of terrorism” a lot more efficiently without the phrase "war against terrorism".

If you want to say one or the other the do so. But combining both meanings into such a sly phrase which seems so rational yet so “leave the media alone” and yet so real-style war like is a truly awesome Orwellian achievement that proves you don't have to be dumb to be swallowed in. Nether forget that you cannot wage war against our own fear, only take action. And by definition fear is at the heart of terrorism, and as said should therefore be at the heart of the “war against terrorism” itself.
But instead finding the terrorists rather than dealing with their terror is.

“Battle for Hearts and minds” means trust (can be in or for). But where is the love, why are there hearts? Do we seriously expect love between to the two people?
Do you think it would be just emotional? George Bush 1984 was a warning not a manual! There was a “battle” for trust but nether for love.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Liberal 1984 no doubt you will find the thread title "Terror Fear in Finland" (on this forum) to be a fine example of "war on terror" doublespeak. . . . . war makes terror. .. .talking about terror makes more terror. . . .the fear of terror creates yet more terror.. . . . . but we are supposed to believe that all these terror causing actions are reducing terror?

They insult our intelligence.

As you point out if we want to make 'war' on terror then we must stop the media from making us read about fear, think about fear, and imagine fear.

No Fear!

Oh, and of course supporting mass killing as a way of reducing terror and fear is a doublespeak also ( reduce fear by making the enemy fearful and then killing them )





[edit on 7-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Not arguing any points but for the record, here are the definitions of 'Doublethink' and 'Doublespeak':


Doublethink means, according to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:

the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 176-177)
en.wikipedia.org...



Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a "communication bypass". Such language is associated with governmental, military, and corporate institutions. Doublespeak may be in the form of bald euphemisms ("downsizing" for "firing of many employees") or deliberately ambiguous phrases ("wet work" for "assassination"). Doublespeak is distinguished from other euphemisms through its deliberate usage by governmental, military, or corporate institutions.

The word doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word actually never appears in that novel; Orwell did, however, coin newspeak, oldspeak, and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. It was therefore just a matter of time before someone came up with doublespeak. Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the B vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 7-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Thanks Agent Smith! Yes it's doublespeak we are talking about; although I guess it leads on to a less imposed definition of doublethink.

To Roy Robinson: Now if Bush said "i want to slaughter lots of people as a way of wiping out terrorism" it would be a policy. But it’s when its called "war against terror" that its doublespeak. Glad you support me on having a war against terrorism sense in definition that would mean cracking down the fear of terrorism (hence there goes the media).



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I wonder if party politics has anything to do with this?

I notice that once you choose a side one can become intellectually dishonest about an issue that the other side may have and then automotically dismiss it and close your ears, because it's the 'them vs us' mentality...

And for this very reason I wish I was back in Washington's time.

The intelligence amongst those people must have been way beyond ours, since these days, people seem to be dumbing down, becoming intellectually dishonest, having a them vs us mentality (part politics) and as alex jones says having the 'ignorance is strength' mentality...

Indeed there are oldthinkers (which seems to be a rarity these days) and newthinkers... These are the ones who don't ask questions, and don't analyize, rather are taken hostage by the emotions that external influences interject, and in my opinion makes it easier for one's brain to become the property of the media and government...

And then to have an opposing opinion even if it was more logical and more fact base, you thought of as the enemy or 'traitor'....

It is indeed scary, and thanks for posting that link, it was very informative.





[edit on 8-8-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
well, i think the war is good. you know, the poor iraqis were being murdered and TORTURED by saddam. now, they are liberated and free to follow the great american dream. the war on terror is really good, too, because we want to beat terror and all the terrorists.
china is scary. they have threatened us with nukes. TERRIFYING! NUKES, EEEEEEK! it's a good thing that we're not in business with china. china's bad. i wouldn't buy a single product from china, if'n i had the choice.
you people out there(bleeding hearts) who are against the war on terror are WORSE than the terrorists. if you are not with us, you are against us, and we should deport anyone who disagrees.
the really good thing is that america is spreading democracy. america's freedom and democracy is so well established, that it is beyond scrutiny. any irregularities in elections are clearly just a few bad apples on the other party's part. hell, you could argue that in a completely free country, voter fraud should be a god given privelege. well, there is no country greater or freer than america.
there's even free trade! of course, certain financial restrictions need to be established to prevent abuse of the wonderful, global-minded free trade agreements.
the world health organisation will help ensure a healthy world. some quarantines and mandatory vaccinations may apply.
the international monetary fund will help the poor. in exchange for forgiving debt, the poor will be made eager to work.
the council on foreign relations will help move towards a global economy. if successful, there will, of course, be no more use for the phrase 'foriegn relations'.

911 was a great day for identifying the new problems of today's reality. we will overcome any obstacle in order to asure the freedom of the american people and free people the world over.



*click* doublethink off.

i think it would be unwise to single people out. go for the quotes of phrases or concepts used by many. like, my favourite, "GET OVER IT". what a fab argument that is. remember, it's not who speaks newspeak, it's who newspeak has inundated.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
No matter what you say about the war against terror doublethink and doublespeak are not good things (unless you're a Stalin of course). They restrict human thought, in order to serve another human thought by deception.

Regarding the war on terror and Iraq. First Gulf war 250,000 Iraqis dead. This one? Nobody knows? Why because the U.S in its mission to do the Iraqis justice does not do body counts on civilians.
Depleted uranium used: Half life 4.2 billion years, dangerous once inhaled and able to releases radiation at point blank range. Shame it vaporizes on impact. First gulf war 300 tonnes used, this war 1500 tonnes and in Baghdad itself. Complete brake down of law and order with over 400 suicide bombings in the last year alone. Kidnap is rife for non political reasons more than it is for political.
What else? Under Saddam he spent more of his countries wealth on his own people than any other leader in the Middle East. Why are they in poverty you might ask? Because of U.N sanctions which according to the U.N caused the deaths of anything from 1.2 and 1.5 million people. In addition their was an exodus of Iraqis from Iraq and still is.
But under Saddam before the Sanctions over 90% of Iraqis were educated, they enjoyed first world health care and education standards.

How many people did Saddam kill? About 350,000 over 30 years according to a Pentagon website i checked.
But in return he brought stability to Iraq which allowed Iraq its brief prosperity. Not a single palace was built or even finished after the U.N Sanctions.
And almost all the people who died under Saddam died during the period we were supporting him. Looks like he lost his nerve for mass killing once we no longer buddies with him. And you know what? I think until we find an Iraqi who is like Saddam then the daily violence in Iraq will never stop, because historically without people like him it never has.
Anyway you talk of freedom, well as over 60% of Iraqis are fundamentalist Muslims (they were in my view rightfully suppressed under Saddam) chances are its not worth turning up to the polls because they form a minority (hence the fact many didn’t, it was'nt just to spite us).
How then with all this in mind can you call Iraq a success regarding the war of terror?

Hope you are reincarnated in the new Iraqi democracy at the end of your life. No insult because thinking from your point of view everything should have turned out fine by then.
But trust me, there will ether be another Saddam or today’s situation it’s the way it’s always been because of the ethnic and cultural mix. For a start fundamentalist believe in Islamic law which oppresses woman, while Secular ones don’t. Shame it’s a matter of faith which will always cause conflict, shame the fundamentalists are the majority in the new Iraq democracy.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Liberal1984,

I would like you to take a moment and look at the topic of the thread. Now, look at billybob's post. Low look at billybob's post like this:


posted by billybob
-well, i think the war is good. you know, the poor iraqis were being murdered and TORTURED by saddam. now, they are liberated and free to follow the great american dream. the war on terror is really good, too, because we want to beat terror and all the terrorists.

-china is scary. they have threatened us with nukes. TERRIFYING! NUKES, EEEEEEK! it's a good thing that we're not in business with china. china's bad. i wouldn't buy a single product from china, if'n i had the choice.

-you people out there(bleeding hearts) who are against the war on terror are WORSE than the terrorists. if you are not with us, you are against us, and we should deport anyone who disagrees.

-the really good thing is that america is spreading democracy. america's freedom and democracy is so well established, that it is beyond scrutiny. any irregularities in elections are clearly just a few bad apples on the other party's part. hell, you could argue that in a completely free country, voter fraud should be a god given privelege. well, there is no country greater or freer than america.

-there's even free trade! of course, certain financial restrictions need to be established to prevent abuse of the wonderful, global-minded free trade agreements.

-the world health organisation will help ensure a healthy world. some quarantines and mandatory vaccinations may apply.

-the international monetary fund will help the poor. in exchange for forgiving debt, the poor will be made eager to work.

-the council on foreign relations will help move towards a global economy. if successful, there will, of course, be no more use for the phrase 'foriegn relations'.
...
*click* doublethink off.
Emphasis and bulletin points added by me.

These are all great examples of doublethinking, which is what the thread is about ehh? I don't think this thread needs to turn into an "is the war on terror good?" thread.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Err... I'm pretty sure Billybob was being sarcastic, I thought he made it pretty clear when he ended the post with the "Doublethink off" line.

Don't take it seriously...



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join